DOPING DOES NOT LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD

[andydude]

"They all doped so he's still the best" or "Let's legalise doping and then we'll have a level playing field"

 

I've heard it too many times, and still do. Please read the article for an explanation of why those statements above are wrong. There's some other interesting points too.

 

If you want I can post much more. Let the debate begin!

 

http://www.theguardi...g-field-fallacy

 

Doping, cycling and the 'level playing field' fallacy, by Matt Seaton

 

.....

 

But this kind of investment is relatively transparent: we can all see how it works plainly enough. And money doesn't buy total dominance. No one expects Bradley Wiggins to win the next six Tours. At the 2012 Tour of Britain, for example, the winner, Jonathan Tiernan-Locke, came not from Team Sky, but the tiny Endura Racing squad, with a fraction of Sky's resources.

 

But if you add money to legalised doping in sport, Goliath will always kill David. We know because we tried this. Legalised doping was effectively where cycling was at when Lance Armstrong won his first Tour de France in 1999. There was no test, then, for EPO, the performance-enhancing drug which had already been poisoning the sport for nearly a decade.

 

.....

 

Edit: I've added a poll.

Edited July 14, 2014 by andydude

[fandacious]

If someone tells me they all doped so it doesn't matter I assume they really have no idea what they are talking about.

 

[andydude]

If someone tells me they all doped so it doesn't matter I assume they really have no idea what they are talking about.

Yes. Then I thought that I hardly know anything about everything, therefore let's debate the actual disagreements and use proof and people in the know.

[Eldron]

To be fair - anyone whoe compates a win at the tour of britain to a win at the TdF doesn't know too much about cycling.

 

We can debate the hell out of it but the playing field was so random in the last decade that nobody really has a clue how fair it was.

[andydude]

To be fair - anyone whoe compates a win at the tour of britain to a win at the TdF doesn't know too much about cycling.

 

We can debate the hell out of it but the playing field was so random in the last decade that nobody really has a clue how fair it was.

The science is there. Doping does not equal the playing field. The article was interesting in that it brought in more the money side and basically the team with the most money has the best doctors, etc.

[milky4130]

Today that statements can't be used maybe 10-20 years ago yes.

[JGR]

The science is there. Doping does not equal the playing field. The article was interesting in that it brought in more the money side and basically the team with the most money has the best doctors, etc.

Did postal have the biggest budget in '99? Surely there were teams and riders with much more experience and possibly cash wrt doping? By most accounts there were complete amateurs in the beginning

[andydude]

Today that statements can't be used maybe 10-20 years ago yes.

Which statement and can you give some more information on why you say that?

[andydude]

Today that statements can't be used maybe 10-20 years ago yes.

 

Edit: double post

Edited July 12, 2014 by andydude

[andydude]

Did postal have the biggest budget in '99? Surely there were teams and riders with much more experience and possibly cash wrt doping? By most accounts there were complete amateurs in the beginning

As far as I can remember USP came in with a bang and had quite a big budget. Lance wouldn't have it any other way. You can almost compare them to Sky's start a few years ago.

 

That is what I remember, but let me go check the facts later and confirm.

[milky4130]

Which statement and can you give some more information on why you say that?

doping today doesn't level the playing field, in LA's era it did, No?

[JGR]

As far as I can remember USP came in with a bang and had quite a big budget. Lance wouldn't have it any other way. You can almost compare them to Sky's start a few years ago.

 

That is what I remember, but let me go check the facts later and confirm.

Lance wouldnt have had as much sway pre winning '99 to demand a bigger budget than established stars surely? TH's book described a rable dable mix of misfits .. bad news bears?

 

Two points:

PEDS effect people differently, but so does altitude training, legal supplements and even gels and energy drinks. Just being devils advocate but should everyone ride on water to really reveal the best rider?

 

Secondly, if a rider were to use a blood bag of if his own blood how would that be more of less of an advantage than another rider also using his own blood. Each has an extra pint of their own 'dope' free blood?

[eddy]

doping today doesn't level the playing field, in LA's era it did, No?

 

No.

[eddy]

Scientifically, the level playing field argument is as valid and the flat earth doctrine and the theory that a nice hot shower prevents AIDS transmission.

[DIPSLICK]

Yeah it's the weekend baby,,,,,must be Friday

 

Fun, you know what the say about ASSumptions hey???

[milky4130]

 

No.

why No? In the context of a clean LA stepping into the European arena in the 90's getting their asses handed to them by the seasoned doppers then, to level the playing field he had to dope.